"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."Chambers & Partners 2017

'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.Legal 500 2010

"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014

'excellence on IT matters'Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010

"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013

"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating." Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014

The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013

Intel Corporation Inc. v CPM UK Ltd C-252/07

James Mellor QC appeared on behalf of Intel in front of the European Court of Justice. The ECJ handed down its judgment in November 2008 after Advocate General Sharpston gave her opinion in June of the same year. The ECJ addressed the issue of what is needed in order to establish the 'link' that is required for infringement under Article 5(2) of the Directive 89/104 as explained in Addidas-Salomon. The ECJ held that the link should be assessed globally and that all relevant factors should be taken into account. These factors include (but are not limited to) the degree of similarity between the conflicting marks, the closeness of the goods and services that the conflicting marks are being used in relation to, the strength of the earlier mark's reputation, the degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character and whether there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The ECJ also confirmed that, in order to fall under Article 5(2), the later mark does not have to have taken unfair advantage of or already caused detriment; it only needs to be established that there is serious likelihood that the future use of the later mark will take unfair advantage or be detrimental to the earlier mark.

We use cookies to make this site as useful as possible. They are small text files we put in your browser to track usage of our site but they don't tell us who you are. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. If you would like to change your preferences you may do so by following the instructions here